If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am reluctant to defend BYU but the speaker said every word of his speech was approved by BYU authorities before he gave it. So that’s interesting. Good for them.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I am reluctant to defend BYU but the speaker said every word of his speech was approved by BYU authorities before he gave it. So that’s interesting. Good for them.

Yes, that was notable. That speech was a positive shot for a lot of LDS people. The reversal of the ban on underage children of gay marriage getting baptized was also a good thing.

BYU is still wrestling with the PR issue of the HC office's heavy handed tactics, so it's not like we're giving BYU a standing ovation - that would be weird. We're Utes, they're Cougars. There are limitations.

I predict the Honor Code office as we now know it will not exist one year from now. Instead honor code worthiness type issues will be sent to the respective bishops and academic disciplinary actions will be handled by the school.

I wish you would predict that a year from now the Church would divest itself of BYU so that the tithes of people in Africa aren't subsidizing BYU tuition.

I don't know whether he was required to submit his speech to authorities or did it of his own accord. If the former, that is troubling.

I think that all commencement speeches there require prior approval. I think this is pretty common.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Maybe this fits in here (since this is the last place I remember us discussing BYUs honor code issues - if not feel free to move if) but Luke Staley is considering having his retired number removed from LES.

I've mentioned ecclesiastical leaders should be handling the worthiness issues of students and he makes a good point that the Honor Code is actually causing kids to delay repentance out of fear of being kicked out of school. He then describes what Lavell Edwards would do (I'll add it was couple with the leniency only athletes at BYU get with the honor code) to help mentor kids along who had made mistakes. That sounds like the right approach and reinforces my original notion.

I believe sancho asked about the non religious parts of the honor code and who enforces that. I suggest they do it the same way they do it will all other professional organizations under the church umbrella. If you work for the church you also have your professional standards and that also includes a yearly ecclesiastical endorsement. The bishops worry about worthiness, the organization deals with all other discipline needs which is usually just correction. (I have a friend who contends that 90% of church employees are unemployable elsewhere, which also makes a case of the church's ability to be compassionate).

So at BYU, grow a beard you or wear hot pants, you can't go to class or take tests. Etc etc.

This is not a complicated fix for BYU and the right one to do. Time to wipe out the thought police.

I am really weary of this honor code talk. The way the honor code is enforced is undoubtedly out of date. However, I believe the entire existence of BYU is out of date. There was likely a time when a place like BYU was important. Now, is no longer that time. There is no rational reason why a small percentage of LDS college age students should have the cost of their educations subsidized by the tithes of those who cannot afford their own eductions. This was brought home last year when I visited Kenya and learned that it costs a family more then they earn in a year to send their kid to high school. The tithes of kids in Africa should not be used to subsidize the tuition of kids from Alpine.

I struggle to understand the erosion of religious freedom that is discussed regularly by LDS leaders and is currently being raised in opposition to the "Equality Act." What freedoms are being eroded? I am religious. I practice my religion at home and at church. I do not perceive those freedoms to be in danger. I also participate in the public square. I expect that I will not be discriminated against in the public square on the basis of my religious beliefs. I don't think I have been. In exchange for protection from discrimination based on my religion, I believe that when I enter the public square I am precluded from discriminating against individuals or groups based on certain criteria including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A couple of examples. The LDS Church owns BYU and KSL. I can see that allowing BYU to make employment decisions that take religion and sexual orientation into account should be protected. However, KSL is a full participant in the public square and should not be allowed to take those things into account. BYU TV is a hybrid. However, it has gone from providing programing for a fairly limited audience to seeking broad and public distribution. It should not be allowed to discriminate.

I struggle to understand the erosion of religious freedom that is discussed regularly by LDS leaders and is currently being raised in opposition to the "Equality Act." What freedoms are being eroded? I am religious. I practice my religion at home and at church. I do not perceive those freedoms to be in danger. I also participate in the public square. I expect that I will not be discriminated against in the public square on the basis of my religious beliefs. I don't think I have been. In exchange for protection from discrimination based on my religion, I believe that when I enter the public square I am precluded from discriminating against individuals or groups based on certain criteria including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A couple of examples. The LDS Church owns BYU and KSL. I can see that allowing BYU to make employment decisions that take religion and sexual orientation into account should be protected. However, KSL is a full participant in the public square and should not be allowed to take those things into account. BYU TV is a hybrid. However, it has gone from providing programing for a fairly limited audience to seeking broad and public distribution. It should not be allowed to discriminate.

I struggle to understand the erosion of religious freedom that is discussed regularly by LDS leaders and is currently being raised in opposition to the "Equality Act." What freedoms are being eroded? I am religious. I practice my religion at home and at church. I do not perceive those freedoms to be in danger. I also participate in the public square. I expect that I will not be discriminated against in the public square on the basis of my religious beliefs. I don't think I have been. In exchange for protection from discrimination based on my religion, I believe that when I enter the public square I am precluded from discriminating against individuals or groups based on certain criteria including race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. A couple of examples. The LDS Church owns BYU and KSL. I can see that allowing BYU to make employment decisions that take religion and sexual orientation into account should be protected. However, KSL is a full participant in the public square and should not be allowed to take those things into account. BYU TV is a hybrid. However, it has gone from providing programing for a fairly limited audience to seeking broad and public distribution. It should not be allowed to discriminate.

How do you make these distinctions in a practical way on a broad set of issues? I'm not even certain your distinctions for BYU, KSL and BYUtv make sense to me. That seems like a nasty mess to parse things that way.

How do you make these distinctions in a practical way on a broad set of issues? I'm not even certain your distinctions for BYU, KSL and BYUtv make sense to me. That seems like a nasty mess to parse things that way.

These are difficult issues. But they need to be addressed. We cannot simply ignore the issues because they are a nasty mess. Religious groups are asking for balance. What is that balance? It is always vaguely stated, and for me, unclear exactly what they want to be able to do. That is my real question? What do they want to do and how is the "Equality Act" infringing on their ability to do what they want? If they want the right to not serve or employ someone who is LGBQT based on some religious belief, just come out and say so. There are some places where they maybe should be allowed to do that? Churches should not be forced to accept anyone and everyone as members. Churches are involved in certain activities where it is important that they be able to consider church membership, etc in making employment decisions. Churches are also involved in activities where I don't believe they should be able to do discriminate. So, it is unacceptable to me to allow churches to discriminate and to allow members of their religion to discriminate when they are engaged in activities in the public marketplace. I believe that is what the religious majority did when it was a majority and they now feel a bit of a pinch when they are not the majority and are required to justify some of their actions. Many times they are simply unable to do so.

For me, the distinction is the marketplace where the activity takes place. BYU is a private, religious institution established to provide both religious and secular education to almost exclusively members of the LDS Church. It makes sense to me that requiring employees to be members and/or willing to abide by certain rules, is okay. (I always found it interesting while attending law school at BYU that most were willing to turn a blind eye to the private habits of non-LDS professors who enjoyed an adult beverage or coffee. Yet, at the same time had no problem turning in students who did the same thing.)
KSL, on the other hand, broadcasts all types of programming. I see no logical reason why it should be exempt from complying with discrimination laws. Further, I don't think it is.
BYUtv is a hybrid. I don't know if it requires employees to sign the equivalent of an honor code. I know that it employs non-Mormons and people who do not conform their personal activities to the teachings of the LDS Church. is it important to the mission that film camera people not be LGTBG? How about on-air talent? I remember a case from many years ago when the LDS Church argued that individuals employed by Beehive Clothing, a company that made garments and Temple clothing, were required to be practicing Mormons. The Church put up a defense that such a practice was needed, but it really was pretty weak. In the end, the evidence was clear that garments and Temple clothing are handled by many who are not members of the LDS Church and there was no religious reason why those making it should be required to be members in good standing.
An even more difficult case can be made for private businesses, such as off-campus, BYU approved housing. I disagree with but understand why BYU would want the restrictions it places on such accommodations in place? I mean, I can see where sharing common walls with members of the opposite sex causes sin. But, should those private businesses be allowed to discriminate? They do not limit their residents to students attending BYU. They allow college-age people to live there so long as they sign some sort of honor code, like document.

I would like someone to articulate what religious freedoms are being taken and what the balance is.

I would like someone to articulate what religious freedoms are being taken

I'm not sure anything is being taken, but it's not hard to imagine a future where religious freedoms are restricted. I think this is preemptive in that sense. The nondiscrimination part of the bill is similar. There is no widespread discrimination now; the bill just makes that official. I think religions would like the same kind of guarantee. They look around and see people who would love to harm religious institutions in any way possible.

In general, I like compromise. Why not let there be some language of compromise in whatever this bill is?

I'm not sure anything is being taken, but it's not hard to imagine a future where religious freedoms are restricted. I think this is preemptive in that sense. The nondiscrimination part of the bill is similar. There is no widespread discrimination now; the bill just makes that official. I think religions would like the same kind of guarantee. They look around and see people who would love to harm religious institutions in any way possible.

In general, I like compromise. Why not let there be some language of compromise in whatever this bill is?

The last time i checked, religion was protected from discrimination in employment, housing, receiving services the same way, as race, national origin and gender. A person's sexual orientation was not protected and this law is an effort to extend those same protections provided to groups of people based on race, national origin and gender to sexual orientation. A cursory reading of the Equality Act appears to me to be an attempt to do that. For example, if a baker could not refuse to bake a cake based on someone's race, national origin or gender. An evangelical baker could not refuse to bake a cake for non-christians, including Mormons, based on his belief that Mormons are not Christian. This law would make it unlawful to engage in such discrimination on the basis of a persons sexual orientation.

The last time i checked, religion was protected from discrimination in employment, housing, receiving services the same way, as race, national origin and gender. A person's sexual orientation was not protected and this law is an effort to extend those same protections provided to groups of people based on race, national origin and gender to sexual orientation. A cursory reading of the Equality Act appears to me to be an attempt to do that. For example, if a baker could not refuse to bake a cake based on someone's race, national origin or gender. An evangelical baker could not refuse to bake a cake for non-christians, including Mormons, based on his belief that Mormons are not Christian. This law would make it unlawful to engage in such discrimination on the basis of a persons sexual orientation.

I probably should have looked at the bill before trying to comment on it. You clearly know more than I do about this. I wonder if the LDS Church is worried about being forced to perform gay weddings based on the bill.

I probably should have looked at the bill before trying to comment on it. You clearly know more than I do about this. I wonder if the LDS Church is worried about being forced to perform gay weddings based on the bill.

If they are, they need better attorneys advising them on potential consequences.

That case has nothing to do with religious freedom. He is 100% free to practice his religion. No one has or will restrict his freedom of religion. He may not be able to use his religion as an excuse to discriminate if he decides to own a business.

The claims of eroding of religious freedom are absolute bullshit and have about as much validity as the claims of flat earthers.

Oh and the LDS church proves once again there is zero place in the religion for LGBTQ people. The LDS church's "fairness for all" = laws vigorously protecting freedom of religion and "basic human rights" for the gays.

So I said to David Eckstein, "You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
--fjm.com

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Tell me a real world example where religious freedom is being infringed on?

I think it is very fair to say there is no place in the LDS church for LGBTQ people when you look at the treatment of them by the LDS church, not some PR website.

So I said to David Eckstein, "You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.
--fjm.com

He may not be able to use his religion as an excuse to discriminate if he decides to own a business.

Didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of the baker 7-2? Did they also not rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

When it comes the this bill, I think the compromise the Church is seeking has already been modeled in SLC, which has law for equal rights for LGBTQ people. On the other hand, have those protections of religious freedoms expressed in the law locally actually eroded the rights of LGBTQ in any way?

And yes I think the reason the Church is being preemptive in this is because of weddings and perhaps other religious ceremonies. The ruling in the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage affirmed it was a human right. It wouldn't seem to be too much of a leap for someone to challenge the church that if they are going to perform weddings for some, they need to perform weddings for all. (A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

(A side note on this, but I also think the recent policy change regarding civil marriages is to counteract this possibility - that if they do ultimately lose that battle they'll get out of the wedding business altogether and just perform sealings).

I agree.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”